ae c cc c < 

"dC c c c c c 
CC C CC C < 

CC C€<L CC 

cc c «at ex 

ct C CCC C 

C< < CiCc -Cr 

c c'cccc cr 
c c «CC C< 
CCC CCC " Q'« 

: c cccc. c 



cccc 

cc <*; ccccc 

c cc c recce 

c<- cc cccccc 
c <e cc cccc 

etc ccccc 
cccc cccccc 
cc ccclccc 



:ccC<scl << etc. ccc 
c e ccc cue fece 



,^QC 
c ccc 
JC<3C< 

CcCC 
tCCC 

X c ccc 

Tcce 



CC«C'CcO 

" ccc «c_-<c< 
3r «^cc 



cccc «c<c C «x ^cc 

s c <: c c «:■< C'<C<<* 

c ccc cccecc 

c ■ c C c <T< C ccc<S 

c ccc cccc 

<CCC CCC etc 
c c( C C ccc 

c < c^ce ccc 
c c *r cc ccc« 
c <: e cc ccc* 
r c cc ccc* 
'fC cc ceo 
: ccc ccc 
cccce< 

< c cc< 

£r <r< < cc 

Z^ ' <«r cr CC 

cc< 



C cCC c 

Cccc c 

:c cc/ c 
rccc 

CCCC «I 

re ccc c«£ 

:ccc cc 



Q <%><%><%. ^^ 



C-X 



: cc 
cc 

T O 

■«CLC 



ILIBRARY OF CONGRESS. # 
1 \85l b 

# i 

t UNITED E AMERICA. ' 



.^..*'*.'% *.«. < *>'^Q 



<^C C 

, <x cc 

Cc c<: 
.c -CCCC 

lc <TC« 

c <C~c < C 

t" C cC 

- CCCC ■ 

cccc c 

recce c 

CtcC C 



c <£C 

C <c <c 

c <«c «£ 
C c«C <s 

<«kc. C< 
c«^C CC' 

eOC-Cc* 
ooCcg 



CcCCC CcC CCCC 



CCCCC 

#CCC<L 

cctc ccc 

cccc ccc 
cccc ccc 

<£CC Ccc 

«sec ccc 

CCCC CC' 

<ECCC C< 

<SCCCC< 



cc cc<: 

- CC c> c 

cc /< c 



C CC-< 

C ccc 
c cc 
c 



C'«$, C 

cc 

c <^c 

e<«sic 

c «* 



c e ccc 

-C C C<SK 

c CC ^ * 
c 

c 

ccc 
< 
cc 



^ CCvc < 

=- -CCl'C c 
CC«C <Cc c 

^;cc < < c cccc ^ 

C C CCCC (s? 

_<v<C cccc r ^ 

^cccecc. ccc 
saocc^c ^-,^c 

5LCCC -C « ce 

ctcc c c':\ 

cccc c. ^ ^ v*v 

.C€£c<-<3:cccx C €K>5f> 
cC^cOCKCCi^ S^J^c 



-«E C«LCCc 

3r c«cc 

' > CCCCC 
• c«scc 



C csC 
c c<C 
c c«C 
c ^ 

c c<a£ 
c ■ c<C^ 
cC< 

C^l 
c«« 

C<£ 
C«£< 
C<0 

c<sa 



c cc 
< cc 

c <c 



C C C c c o c c<r > < 



c cc <T< < c< < c < 

t CC <L < <- <<< C «f C 

c'cc <r< c Ccc<|ccc< 



c a cc c 

< cc c .< c 
cc cc 

ccc cc cc 

<XC «L c 
<L<CCJLC C « 
(CC«CC to 
<: cc cc «c C 



c C< ■ '■ r 

C cccc C< cc 

c Cccc 

C C C< c 

Vc crc<c< 
~"- c< c < 



^c3F^ 


LCSJC C<L c « 

C cc <c< c 




C9C CjTC 


<x 


pc4c:'4cr 


etc; ccc 
c<c <^r 






•^>V V*. v f 


L 


" dec: C(CC 
<§C <SCC 



CCCc' CXI CO 



C V <?■« «lcccc< < 

;Cc c CKC.CC c 



i c< C<< ■ 

1 ccc«, 

rcCCCC 

C I CX ' 

CC^Cc 

cc*o 
x ccc< 

'nc ccc 

f cc<& 



CC- CCcjCCCC< 

oc cxcccc* 

CC <SCC<Cf 

rccc <:occ<c:< 

c cc CCCCC* 

ccxrecccsi 



ccCCC CSClCCCC 
' d cc *y«: c<ci 

^C'cC^ 
_C<C< 



c cccc 
c cccc 
c cc 

lc C 

'CCCC 

rccccic 



CCCCC' CSS 

cccc - > >£ 

:«CCCCi;' £ «| 



CXCC 

cccCCCC-V ' 
- cccCcXC 



cc ccokcc 

cc c@c<§K^: 
cc C<SC«SC 
cc cc<r«<c 

ccc «c c 



.<■ 

ICCC 

HCC<Cj 

"CC 

psc 

c c ccr^GCCc* ■ c <rc~c?c 

C CO 

"tCCCCC€(' 
" o c cc,«c <-■ 



<=? ^cCCCCcC 

cc ^ccccccx 
<X CCCCCXLC CCC 

CCCcCCc' 

ice c cc 

CCCC CCC 

-r c cc 



cc«l ^c< 

L cc ^c ^< 



^CtcCCCCCSCS 

C< c .C< 

t<r c cccc ^ 



C C CCjC 



^ cc <CC CKC 
:Vlo- <«.C CC 

rc ccc 
C <2C 

:c ccc 



CC ccccCc^ 



c c ccc 

c ^ c c 

c C C<C_«CC 
c C tcC«C( 

c « C ccOJBEQ 



CCC O 1 

c ccc 

Lc- ccc 
c ccc c< 
^c ccccca 

-c CCC« 

"C( C«3CC<!<pi 
"~<ccxc..<! * 

^C-c, CCCcc 
"CC CcCC«<l 



c<c .< 

: CC' 

; <:< 

'« C 



cc^BlScro cccc"^ 

Cc cVcWa^Sc c ci ccc: cc« 

cCtclc^CC ccCC.ccc 

^^S^Kfc C c C c < C --% 
"^T^C? CC cccc CC 



r^c c LCCcccccc 

'« CICICC CC CCC'CCC 



CCC cccc cc 
C C<X cccc CC 
1 C ccc C 
? <C c cc c^ 



4 



-J 



SPEECH 



WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 



MANAGEMENT AND1DISP0SITI0N 



PUBLIC DOMAIN, 



DELIVERED 



IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES. 



J 



FEBRUARY 27, 1851. 





' r 
Vv T ASHINGTON : 

BUELL & BLANCHARD. 

1851. 



* 



\x 



SPEECH. 



Mr. President : 

The organization of the American Republic is a political 
anomaly. Ancient and modern States, rudely constituted with- 
in narrow limits, have aggrandized* themselves by colonies and 
conquests, while passing through various revolutions of govern- 
ment. But the world has never before seen a State assume a 
perfect organization in its very beginning, and extend itself over 
a large portion of a great continent, without conquests, without 
colonies, and without undergoing any change of constitution. 

The success of Portugal and of the Netherlands in planting 
profitable commercial colonies in the East Indies, in the fifteenth 
and sixteenth centuries,, stimulated nearly all the European 
States to attempt to secure similar advantages, by exploring 
and appropriating to themselves portions of the New World, 
then known as the Western Indies. Spain, Britain, and France, 
divided between themselves nearly all North America. Each 
of these Kingdoms, however, pursued a policy so rigorous as to 
hinder the growth of the colonies it planted. 

The United States, in the Revolution of 1776, supplanted 
Great Britain in sovereignty over the region lying between the 
St. Lawrence and Louisiana, and stretching from the Atlantic 
coast to the banks of the Mississippi. 

.The conquering States, practically independent of each other, 
were embarrassed by conflicting boundaries. The controversy 
was magnanimously ended, by an agreement that each should 
release its claim of unappropriated territory for the common use 
and benefit. 

New York led the way, and ceded her claims as well of u po- 
litical jurisdiction" as " of the right of soil," u to be and inure 
to the use and benefit of such of the United States as should 
become members of the Federal Alliance of the said States, and 
for no other use .or purpose whatever." 

Virginia claimed the broad region lying northwest of the Ohio, 
and relinquished it in 1785, with a declaration that it should 
" be considered as a common fund fo'r the use and benefit of 
such of the United States as have become or shall become mem- 
bers of the Confederation or Federal Alliance of the said States, 
(Virginia inclusive,) according to their usual and respective pro- 



portions in the general charge and expenditure, and shall be 
faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for no 
other use or purpose whatsoever. " 

Massachusetts soon afterwards released to the United States, 
"for their benefit, Massachusetts inclusive." 
Connecticut conveyed in 1786, in the same form. 
South 'Carolina, in 1787, ceded, " for the benefit of the United 
States, South Carolina inclusive." 

North Carolina, in 1790, conveyed by a deed containing the 
same declaration which had been used by Virginia ; and Georgia 
completed the title of the United States by a cession on the 
.same terms, attended with other stipulations which are not now 
important. 

The Constitution of the United States, adopted in the course 
of this great transaction, sanctioned it as follows : " The Con- 
gress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules 
and regulations respecting, the territory or other property be- 
longing to the United States ; and nothing in this Constitution 
shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United 
States, or of any particular State." — Art. 14, Sec. 3. 

The Continental Congress had previously adopted the Ordi- 
nance of 1787, by which they established a Government in the 
Northwestern Territory, and provided for its future subdivision 
into States. With a view to that great political purpose, the 
Constitution declared that " New States may be admitted by 
'the Congress into this Uiiion." — Art. 5, Sec. 3. 

The purchase of Louisiana from France in 1803, the acquisi- 
tion of Florida by a grant from Spain in- 1819, the discovery of 
Oregon, and the recent purchase of New Mexico and Upper 
California, extended our domain along the shores of the Gulf of 
Mexico to the Rio Grande, and, from its head waters, across the 
Rocky Mountains and the Snowy Hills to the Pacific Ocean. 
The aggregate quantity of this national estate is fifteen hundred 
and eighty-four millions of acres ; of which, one hundred and 
thirty -four millions have been definitely appropriated, and there 
remain, including appropriations ' not yet perfected, fourteen 
hundred and fifty millions of acres. 

Using only round numbers, these lands are distributed among 
the States and Territories, as follows': 

Acres. 
In Ohio ------ 745,000 

Indiana - 2,751,000 

Illinois - # ---- 14,060,000 

Missouri - . - - - - 29,2J6,000 

Alabama - - - - 17,238,000 

Mississippi - - - - - 14,308,000 

Louisiana ----- 22,854,000 

Michigan ' 24,864,000 



Arkansas ----- 27,402,000 
Flprida ----- 31,801,000 

Iowa ----- 27,153,000 

Wisconsin ----- 26,321,000 
Minnesota ----- 56,000,000 
Northwest Territory - - - 376,000,000 
Oregon Territory - 218,536,000 

Nebraska Territory - - - 87,488,000 
Indian Territory - 119,789,000 

California and Utah - - - 287,162,000 
New Mexico ----- 49,727,000 
The domain came to the United States encumbered with a 
right of possession by Indian tribes, which is gradually extin- 
guished by purchase, as the necessities of advancing population 
require. 

At the establishment of the Federal Government, the United 
States suffered from exhaustion by war, and labored under the 
pressure of a great national debt, while they were obliged to 
make large expenditures for new institutions, and to prepare for 
defence by land and by sea. They therefore adopted a policy 
which treated the domain merely as a fund or source of revenue. 
They divided it into townships, sections, and quarter-sections, 
and offered it at public sale, at a minimum price of two dollars 
per acre, on credit, aud subsequently at private sale, on the 
same terms. In 1820, they abolished the credit system, and 
reduced the price to one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre. 
In 1833, they recognised a right of pre-emption in favor of 
actual occupants ; and the system, as thus modified, still re- 
mains in form upon our statute-book. The United States, how- 
ever, have, at different times, made very different dispositions 
of portions of the domain. Thus there have been appropriated 
to the new States and Territories, for purposes of internal im- 
provement, for saline reservations, for the establishment of 
seats of Government and public buildings, and for institutions 
of education, as follows : 

Acres. 

To Ohio ------ 1,847,575 

Indiana ------ 2,331,690 

' Illinois ------ 1,649,024 

Missouri ----- 1,793,743 

Alabama 1,473,994 

Mississippi ----- 1,384,944 

Louisiana ----- 1,332,124 

Michigan ----- 1,674,598 

Arkansas - - - - - 1,489,220 

Wisconsin 217,920 

Iowa 46,720 

Florida ------ 1,553,635 



6 

Besides these appropriations, the Senate will at once recall 
several acts of Congress, which surrendered, in the whole, 
seventy -nine millions of acres for bounties in the Mexican war, 
bounties in the war of 1812, subsequent gratuities to the sol- 
diers in the same war and in Indian wars, cessions of swamp 
lands to new States, and for the construction of a railroad from 
Chicago to Mobile, and other internal improvements, none of 
which last-named cessions have yet been located. 

The aggregate of revenues derived from the public domain is 
one hundred and thirty-five millions three hundred and thirty- 
nine thousand ninety-tliree dollars and ninety-three cents, show- 
ing an annual average revenue of one and a quarter million of 
dollars since the system of sales was adopted. 

Mr. President, I think the time is near at hand when the 
United States will find it expedient to review their policy, and 
to consider the following principles : 

First. That lands shall be granted in limited quantities, 
gratuitously, to actual cultivators only. 

Second. That the possessions of such grantees shall be 
secured against involuntary alienation. 

Third. That the United States shall relinquish to the States 
the administration of the public lands within their limits. 

These principles, sir, have no necessary connection. I shall 
therefore discuss them separately. 

First. A gratuitous allotment of lands in limited quantities 
to actual settlers and cultivators only. This principle involves 
three propositions : 

1. A limitation of the quantity which shall be granted to any 
one person ; 

2. Occupation and cultivation as conditions of the grant ; 

3. A gratuitous grant. 

First. A limitation of the quantity to be allotted to any one 
person. 

If the public lands were moveable merchandise, price would 
be the principal, if not the only subject of inquiry. On the con- 
trary, it is only the money received by the Government on sales 
that perishes or passes away. The lands remain fixed just 
where they were before the sale, and they constitute a part of 
the territory subject to municipal administration as much after 
sale as before. The possessors of the land sold become soon, if 
not immediately, citizens, and they will ultimately be a majority 
of the whole population of the country, supporting the Govern- 
ment by their contributions, maintaining it by their arms, and 
wielding it for their own and the general welfare. To look, 
then, at this subject merely with reference to the revenue that 
might be derived from the salf of the lands, would be to commit 
the fault of that least erected spirit that fell from Heaven, 
whose 



f 

i( Looks and thoughts 
Were always downward bent, admiring more 
The riches of Heaven's pavement, trodden gold, 
Than aught divine, or holy, else enjoyed." 

AH will admit — all do admit — that the domain should be so 
administered as to favor the increase of population, the aug- 
mentation of wealth, the cultivation of virtue, and the diffusion 
of happiness. 

I do not say that land in this or in any other country ought to 
be or ever could be divided and enjoyed equally. I assert no 
such absurdity. But I do say, with some confidence, that great 
inequality of landed estates, here or elsewhere, tends to check 
population, enterprise, and wealth, and to hinder and defeat the 
highest interests of society. Every State in this Union recog- 
nises this principle, and guards against undue aggregation of 
estates by restraints upon accumulation, by inhibitions of entails, 
and by dividing inheritances. A partition of this vast public 
domain is inevitable. It has been going on ever since the lands 
were acquired. It is going on now. And it will go on here- 
after with increasing rapidity. 'That partition affords us an op- 
portunity to apply the same beneficent and invigorating policy in 
a new and benign form, without disturbing any existing estates, 
or interfering wifti any vested interests, and without disturbing 
any established laws or customs. 

There is no arbitrary measurement of the portion of land 
which one possessor can advantageously cultivate. Yet there 
are, practically, dimensions within which lands are held for that 
p.urpose ; and when these are exceeded, the surplus is held for 
purposes of commerce or speculation. Commerce in the public 
lands, although by no means immoral, nevertheless, ought to be 
regarded with jealousy. It diverts capital from active or pro- 
ductive industry, and prolongs the period before the land pur- 
chased can be made fruitful. Mortgages, judgments, and acci- 
dents of insolvency and of death, render the title uncertain and 
confused, and thus exclude the lands from market. Every one 
has seen in new countries extensive tracts of land upon which 
the speculator had laid his hand, and thus rendered them useless 
to himself, useless to the community, and useless or nearly so 
to the State. The want of some security against inconve- 
niences so prejdicial to the States may now be supplied without 
producing any embarrassment to individuals or to the Gov- 
ernment. / 

Secondly. The same policy seems to commend the principle 
of insisting on permanent occupation and cultivation as condi- 
tions of a grant of any portion of the public domain. It ought 
to be kept open and available to those who seek it for cultiva- 
tion. It ought therefore to be kept free from absent owners, 
who, while they would exclude settlers, would leave it entirely 



unproductive, and wiio would pa) r to the State either nothing, or 
at most a tax that would poorly compensate for stamping sterility 
upon the soil. 

The same principle that dictated the abandonment of the 
credit system in 1820 seems to prescribe now a limitation of the 
sales to actual settlers. Nor would the revenue derived from 
sales be affected by such a measure. The price of the land is 
fixed and uniform. If more lands are sold at one time under 
the present system than would be sold with such a limitation, a 
rest must follow, until the excess of land sold above the actual 
supply of the market shall be taken off at a profit or loss from 
the hand of the speculator. The commercial revulsion of 1837, 
aggravated by wild and reckless speculations in the dofoain, 
gave us instructions on this subject which ought not to be 
neglected. 

The Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Felch,] who has discussed 
this subject with very great ability, dwells upon the difficulty of 
prescribing the evidence of occupancy and cultivation. But this 
difficulty would soon be removed if the system should be changed. 
A title might be withheld until improvements should be made 
sufficient to prevent a voluntary forfeiture. 

Thirdly. The question of making the grants of public 
lands gratuitously is one of more difficulty. *By gratuitous 
grants I mean those which would be practically so, and that the 
lands thus disposed of should be charged with the costs of the 



grant. 



The demand of one dollar and twenty-five cents per acre, or 
of two hundred dollars on a farm of one hundred and sixty acres, 
•although it is not unjust, and although it may be necessary, is 
nevertheless, in its practical operation, a tax upon the privilege, 
of cultivating the domain. But the first and fundamental 
interest of the Republic is the cultivation of its soil. That cul- 
tivation is the sole fountain of the capital or wealth which sup- 
plies every channel of industry. The more it is taxed, the less 
freely it will flow. It is true indeed that, notwithstanding this 
tax, labor seeks the soil within the new States and Territories, 
and that society advances there with a rapidity unparalleled. 
But it is equally true that the tax prevents the immigration of 
a very large mass of person^ who are destitute of employment 
in the Eastern States, while it rejects even a greater mass- of 
cultivators in Europe. We are competitors with the European 
States in agriculture and in manufactures. They -have the ad- 
vantages of cheaper labor and greater capital. We ought 
therefore to invite here the labor necessary to augment our pro- 
ductions, and the industry and skill required to prepare them 
for internal and foreign commerce. Can it be doubtful for a' 
moment that it is our policy to bring the manufacturer to our 



own s 3 and to invite the farmer to supply the wants of the 

artisan from our own unproductive lands 1 

Commercial supremacy demands just such an agricultural 
basis as the fertile and extensive regions of the United States, 
when inhabited, will supply. Political supremacy follows com- 
mercial ascendency. It was by reason of the want of just such 
an agricultural basis, that Venice, Portugal, and Holland, suc- 
cessively lost commerce and empire. It was for the purpose of 
securing just such a basis, that France, England, and Spain, 
seized so eagerly and held so tenaciously the large portions of 
this continent which they respectively occupied. It was for the 
purpose of supplying the loss of this basis, that England has 
within the last seventy years extended her conquests over a large 
portion of India. 

We now possess this basis, and all that we need is to develop 
its capabilities as fully and as rapidly as possible. Nor ought 
we to overlook another great political interest. Mutual jeal- 
ousies delayed a long time the establishment of the Union of 
these States, and have ever since threatened its dissolution. It 
is apparent that the ultimate security for its continuance is 
found in the power of the States established, and hereafter to be 
established, on the public domain. Those new and vigorous 
communities continually impart new life to the entire Common- 
wealth, while the absolute importance of free access to the 
Ocean will secure their loyalty, even if the fidelity of the At- 
lantic States shall fail. Such as these, sir, may have been some 
of the considerations that induced Andrew Jackson so long ago 
to declare his opinion, that the time was not distant when the 
public domain ought to cease to be regarded as a source of rev- 
enue. Such considerations may have had some influence with, 
the late distinguished Senator from South Carolina, [J. C. Cal- 
houn,] to propose a release of the public domain to the States, 
on their paying a small per centum of revenue to the United 
States ; and Ave are at liberty to suppose that a course of reason- 
ing not entirely unlike this brou'ght that eminent statesman, who 
is now Secretary of State, to propose here a year ago a gratui- 
tous appropriation of the public domain to actual settlers. 

Nevertheless, the practicability of such a policy, and its har- 
mony with other national interests, are as yet by no means gen- 
erally admitted. The first objection which it encounters is the 
economical one, that it would be unwise to give away the pub- 
lic lands. But the property given would remain with the giver 
after the gift, and would be enhanced in usefulness by the gift. 
All that we should give away by surrendering the public do- 
main would be the revenue that might be derived from sales. 
The honorable Senator from Michigan pathetically asks, what 
new fountain shall be opened to supply the- deficiency, if this 
one be closed ? And has it come to this, sir : -that the Federal 



10 

Government, charged with only the burdens of national defence, 
of commerce, and of arbitrament between the States, while abso- 
lutely relieved from all responsibilities of municipal and domestic 
administration, yet enjoying unlimited power of indirect as well 
as of even direct taxation, cannot sustain itself in a season of 
profound peace, without consuming the patrimony of the States ? 
Sir, I answer the Senator's inquiry: The resource to supply 
the deficiency of a million and a quarter of dollars will be found 
in retrenchment of the expenses of administration. 

A Senator. Will this Government ever retrench? Does 
the Senator from New York expect this Government to re- 
trench ? 

Mr. Seward. No, sir; not while the revenue remains full. 
Reduce the revenue a million and a quarter, or even five mil- 
lions, and you will find the expenses of the Government accom- 
modate themselves to the reduction. Raise the revenue to a 
hundred millions, and you will find the expenses adjust them- 
selves to that standard. Sir, if you are ever to have retrench- 
ment, you must begin with reducing taxation. And where can 
you begin so well as with the taxation upon the privilege of cul- 
tivating the national estate ? But, sir we shall have no such 
deficiency of revenue to supply. Alarms of an exhausted treas- 
ury are continually sounded here, while the revenues received 
under a system of imposts, which in many respects is most 
unwise, annually exceed all estimates of administration. Last 
year, the Secretary of the Treasury predicted a deficiency of 
sixteen millions of dollars, and yet no deficiency at all occurred. 
The revenues for the present year are equally prosperous ; and 
they will never be less prosperous w T hile we are at peace, as I 
hope we shall always be, for the wealth and industry of the 
country are constantly increasing and expanding. I know, in- 
deed, that revenue is liable to be affected by fluctuations of 
trade ; but such disturbances are only occasional and tempo- 

The Senator from Michigan exaggerates the prodigality of 
what he calls the giving away of ftie domain, by stating that it 
cost seventy-five millions of dollars — equivalent to twenty-two 
cents per acre, or thirty-two dollars and twenty cents for each 
farm of one hundred and sixty acres. And from such premises 
as these he argues that it would cost thirty-five millions of dol- 
lars to give away the public lands lying in Wisconsin, Iowa, 
Michigan, Missouri, and Minnesota. Sir, I do not understand 
exactly the basis of the Senator's estimate of the cost of the 
domain, but I can nevertheless safely pronounce his speculations 
entirely fallacious. If the cost of the revolutionary war, the 
cost of the long controversy with France w T hich ended in the 
purchase of Louisiana, the cost of all the Indian wars, and the 
cost of the late war with Mexico, all of which wer£ in some 



11 

degree connected with the acquisition of the public domain, 
should be included in the estimate, the entire cost of the public 
lands would be seven hundred millions, instead of seventy-five 
millions of dollars. If, on the other hand, the expense account 
be credited with all the national benefits — financial, commercial, 
and political — which have been secured, the domain would .be 
discharged from all indebtedness whatever to the Treasury. 

Sir, the acquisition of the domain, whatever was its cost, is a 
transaction completed, ended, past. Its value is what it is worth 
now, not what it cost. 

Mr. President, the question of such a disposition of the pub- 
lic lands as I have suggested is entirely misapprehended. It is 
not whether we shall relinquish a revenue of a million and a 
quarter. The revenue has ceased, and the fountain from which 
it flowed is dried up already. 

We have by various acts, passed within the last ten years, 
given up seventy-eight millions nine hundred and thirty-two 
thousand five hundred and thirteen acres, which are now in mar- 
ket and coming into market, and which must be taken off from 
the hands of States and individuals before our own sales can be 
renewed. The Secretary of the Treasury assures us that the 
revenue from the public domain is suspended by this legislation 
for a period of sixteen years. 

Sir, a revenue that is suspended for sixteen years has practi- 
cally ceased forever. The Senator from Michigan, perplexed 
with this argument, reviews the Treasury estimates, and reduces 
the period of exhaustion to eight years. 

Sir, I say, then, to the Senator, that he has not changed the 
case. A national revenue that is suspended for eight years has 
practically ceased forever. But, sir, neither the Senator from 
Michigan, nor even the Secretary of the Treasury, has estimated 
the period of exhaustion at its full length. Congress is annually 
making new appropriations. The Senate has at this session 

ssed an act disposing of ten millions of acres. We all hope 
that that act wilt become a law, although its effect would be to 
add at least five years to the term for which the revenue from 
the domain is suspended. Let us then apprehend the emergency 
as it is, and act accordingly. The domain no longer yields, nor 
will never again yield, a revenue. Since its financial benefits 
have ceased, let us no longer dispose of it by impulse and 
caprice, not to say by partiality or favor, but let us so dispose 
of it as to secure political and social benefits to the whole Union. 

It is objected that the domain is pledged to public creditors. 
The debt charged upon the domain is $27,935,350 — a debt 
which is rapidly diminishing, and, if we practice economy, will 
have disappeared, by the appliance of revenues from customs 
alone, long'before the public domain will yield a dollar, for even 
the payment of the interest on it. But if it be necessary to hold 



12 

the public domain liable for the debt, we may properly set apart 
sufficient lands for that purpose, and let the residue be disposed 
of as other interests require. 

The Senator from Michigan resisted the policy proposed, on 
the ground that it would reduce the value of real estate in the 
new. States. It has been urged that that inconvenience would 
also reach the old States. The inconvenience, Mr. President, 
if it should occur at all, would be merely temporary. The 
reclaiming of the domain would go on more rapidly ; and we all 
know that cultivated as well as vacant lands rise in value just 
as rapidly as new lands lying amongst or -adjacent to them are 
improved. What would be lost in the first instance, would be 
abundantly regained afterwards. 

There is, however, Mr. President, one objection of a more 
serious nature than any I have yet considered. I hear it said 
on all sides, that the domain ought to be disposed for great and 
beneficent objects — objects beneficial to the old as well as to the 
new States. Sir, I have always favored such a policy ; and it 
is upon that ground that I have cheerfully voted hitherto, as I 
shall continue to vote hereafter, for appropriations upon that 
principle, so long as Congress shall continue to adhere even in 
form to the ancient system. It is upon this ground that I shall 
support the bill now under consideration, which proposes to 
bestow upon the State of Louisiana the public lands within her 
limits, to enable her to improve the navigation of th£ Missis- 
sippi — a policy that I brought before the Senate at the last 
session — a measure of great urgency, and of conceded national 
importance. I have had, moreover, a hope that this great 
resource might be applied to the establishment of a system for 
.the gradual but certain removal of slavery, by a scheme of com- 
pensating emancipation. I have thought that the slaveholding 
States might wisely propose such a system, and that the free 
States ought to accede to it. But, sir, it is manifest that if the 
old States could not agree upon such a system, or even upon any 
other system of partition of the public domain among the States, 
or of distribution of its proceeds, while they held unquestioned 
the political power of Government, they cannot now hope to 
agree upon and secure the adoption of such a system, when that 
power is actually passing over from them to the new States. 
The new States will control the decision of this great question. 
We may, nevertheless, by yielding to what is inevitable, modify 
the policy to be adopted. ' 

I submitted, Mr. President, a second principle, to wit : that 
the public lands, so to be granted to actual settlers, ought to be 
secured to them against involuntary alienation. 

I respect all lawful contracts, and I would not unnecessarily 
interfere with even rigorous remedies which existed when such 
contracts were made. But it is wise as it is just and humane 



13 

to alleviate prospectively the relations between debtor and cred- 
itor. Within the last twenty years, imprisonment for debt, a 
system which had prevailed for more than two thousand years 
before, has been safely abolished by every State in this Union, 
and I believe by every commercial nation in Europe. New York, 
the most commercial State, has with equal safety abolished the 
rigorous remedy of distress for rent, and has exempted certain 
portions of estates from liability to sale for debts contracted 
after such laws were passed. Other States have adopted the 
policy of protecting the homestead from compulsory sale. A 
home is the first necessity of every family ; it is indispensable to 
the education and qualification of citizens. Cannot society justly 
withdraw it from the hazards of commercial contracts, and from 
exposure to the accidents of disease and death? We bestow r 
pensions upon decayed soldiers who have faithfully served their 
country in her wars ; we protect such annuities against involun- 
tary assignment ; and the policy is as wise as it is generous. 
But he who reclaims an acre of land from the sterility of nature, 
and brings it into a productive condition, confers a greater ben- 
efit upon the State than valor has often the power to bestow. 
Sir, all that is moveable in property may be used as a security 
for credits — and that security is adequate to supply all the 
wants of commerce. The home of the farmer, the asylum of the 
children of the Republic, may be safely reserved and protected. 
.There remains, Mr. President, a third principle, which, I 
think, demands the consideration of Congress, which is: That, 
the administration of the public lands within the States should 
be relinquished to them. 

It has been sufficiently show r n, that the United States can no 
longer derive any financial benefit from the domain. They can 
at best hope to appropriate it to purposes of internal improve- 
ment and education. Experience has taught us nothing, if it 
has not shown that the action of Congress upon those interests 
is less judicious and beneficent than the action of the several 
States. Of all the railroads, canals, and other works of internal 
improvement — of all the universities, colleges, and schools, in 
the country, the States are, almost exclusively, the projectors, 
founders, and patrons. To maintain that the United States can 
select such objects, and apply the public lands to the attainment 
of them, more wisely than the States could do, is to controvert 
the principle of our Constitution, which assigns domestic inter- 
ests and affairs to local administration. Sir, we have only a 
temporary jurisdiction and a temporary estate in the domain — 
both of which are of brief duration, and comparatively valueless. 
The reversion of both belongs to the States, and is infinitely 
important to them. It is not until that reversion has taken 
place that the domain really begins to contribute to the wealth 
and strength of the whole Republic. 



14 

Nor am I greatly embarrassed by the objection that the new 
States would derive an unequal share of the benefits from what 
is justly called a " common estate." If all the public lands lying 
within their limits were released to them, they would still be 
inferior to the older States in the advantages of capital, labor, 
and commercial position. Every dollar of revenue which we 
should release, would remain within the new States, enhancing 
their ability to construct channels of trade, and to found systems 
of education — while their own increasing wealth and prosperity 
would equally increase the wealth and prosperity of the* old 
States, with whom they are intimately related and indissolubly 
connected. 

The Senator from Michigan is alarmed with apprehensions 
that the simplicity and certainty of titles would be put in jeop- 
ardy, by a transfer of the public lands to the States. But, sir, our 
machinery of title, which is so perfect, could be at once transferred 
to the States, and they could operate it with increased efficiency, 
and with economy, which is unknown to us.* No one could 
defend for a moment the principle that the Federal Government 
ought to retain the domain, with all its expenses of administra- 
tion, for the mere purpose of conferring titles in it, upon the 
citizens of the States. 

The possession of the domain, moreover, creates relation^ of 
landlord and tenant, of patronage and dependency between the 
Government and the States, injurious to both. This has been 
an inconvenience hitherto unavoidable, and it ought to be con- 
tinued no longer than shall be required by a paramount national 
interest. 

I shall consider, Mr. President, very briefly, the power of 
Congress in the premises. So far as the Constitution is con- 
cerned, I shall pass by all commentaries and all glosses, and 
take my stand upon the simple text — " The Congress shall have 
power to dispose of, and make all needful rules and regulations 
respecting, the territory and other property belonging to the 
United States." The power of disposition thus conferred is 
general, unlimited, absolute. It is the same power that Con- 
gress has to dispose of forts, magazines, arsenals, edifices, or 
ships. They have power to sell. They have power to give. 
Of course the power should be exercised in this as in all other 
cases, for the best interests of the nation, but the discretion of 
Congress is not abridged. 

Let us now examine the supposed limitations in the deeds of 
cession ; for the rights of the States are secured by the Consti- 
tution. There are several grants which, it has been seen, are 
expressed in different forms. It is not the form employed in 
any one of the grants, but the general spirit and effect of them 
all, that explain and define the power conveyed. New York, 
Massachusetts, and Connecticut, released, by language broad 



15 

and comprehensive. They conveyed "for the benefit of the 
United States.' 1 

Virginia and other States amplified, but manifestly for the 
purpose of expre : e same meaning more fully. They grant- 
ed" for the use and benefit of the United States,'.' and declared 
that the estate and jurisdiction conferred should " be considered 
as a common fund of all the States, according to their usual respec- 
tive proportions in the general charge and expenditure, and should 
be faithfully and bona fide disposed of for that purpose, and for 
no other purpose whatsoever." This language -was adopted with 
reference to the then existing Articles of Confederation, under 
which the States were charged with contributions for the sup- 
port of the Federal Government, which system was afterwai 
modified by the Constitution of the United States, so as to dispc : 
with contributions from the States, and invest Congress with 
power of taxation upon imposts, and of direct taxation, ace-, 
ing to representative population. Certainly the terms of these 

- were not intended to confine Congress to a dispositi 
of the lands by sale only : Because, first, they expressed no such 

Bg; and because, secondly, the political jurisdiction, as w 
right of soil, were included in the designation of " a com- 
mon fund. v 

Again : It would be practically impossible, under any system 
whatever, to secure equal benefits from the domain to all : 
States. If you sell the lands in Ohio, you may divide the avails 
between that State and all her sister States, but the land will 
still remain, yielding power and wealth, directly to the State, 
forever : while the other States can be only indirectly recipir: 
of such benefits. 

What was intended then was simply this : that whatever 
position Congress should #nake of the domain, should be one 
purely national and impartial. It seems to me to mean iiol 
ing more, and the Constitution expresses that meaning fully. Ii. 
then, the adoption of such principles as I have discussed has 
become necessary already, or shall hereafter become necessary, 

3 policy would then be a proper exercise of the constitute: 
power, and would fall within the trust as defined by the deeds of 
sion. 

This is a subject of vast importance. It reaches ac: 
hole basis of the great empire which is rising on this Conti— 
nent, and forward through all the stages of its elevation, and 
even .of its decline ai , if it shall not be perpetual. Posterity 

and perhaps the civilized world will review our decisions in t 
light reficcted on them by their broad and lasting consequences. 

ay they be such as will abide so severe and so impartial 

a scrutiny. 









>2>» 



^^opj>jeog>. 






> ■ 












^? =?a ^ a>>> 

iR ^ £ ^ ^>^o> 



&oj> 3J3J 






«V>aJBgaKi»- 



=> >^>>y>^ 



; ^>>s>3 »: 






^ » y>S^ 

>3> )>;- 















^>39£ ».> >:>> »» 












O 



X> . 



* J>>\-2>J! £2*> 






; 









2 *s> » - 

> » j> >.- 
» } y »>- 






Ot> > b 



» 5 SS^^sr ^?:^>d>» 
5 55 >^ 



^> .»:> i3>>E>;>». 

' ^ >J9^> *> ^ ^>) ■>- 



>^> •>> > ^ i 



3» ^ 

• >^> >: 



> i 

» - - 



^ > » > 
:>"> >);> "»X 

^ > > > > >>_ 

y> >> >» > ) ). 






> ' >^ ■ >, 

>' >. 
1) > 

»s > > 



> » 
>x> 
~>» 
>X> 

>» 



